This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/09/world/middleeast/obama-iran-nuclear-talks.html

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Obama Says Nuclear Deal Offered to Iran Tests Whether It Is Serious Obama Says Nuclear Deal Offered to Iran Tests Whether It Is Serious
(about 1 hour later)
WASHINGTON — President Obama said that he and other world leaders have offered Iran an “extraordinarily reasonable deal” that will test whether the leadership of the Islamic nation is serious about at last resolving the dispute over its nuclear program.WASHINGTON — President Obama said that he and other world leaders have offered Iran an “extraordinarily reasonable deal” that will test whether the leadership of the Islamic nation is serious about at last resolving the dispute over its nuclear program.
Even as negotiators appear close to an agreement, Mr. Obama highlighted the challenge of what comes next: ensuring that any pact forged in Geneva can pass muster in Tehran, where Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, has expressed deep skepticism about a settlement with the outside world.Even as negotiators appear close to an agreement, Mr. Obama highlighted the challenge of what comes next: ensuring that any pact forged in Geneva can pass muster in Tehran, where Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, has expressed deep skepticism about a settlement with the outside world.
“We have made progress in narrowing the gaps, but those gaps still exist,” Mr. Obama said in an interview with CBS News that aired on Sunday morning’s “Face the Nation” program. “And I would say that over the next month or so, we’re going to be able to determine whether or not their system is able to accept what would be an extraordinarily reasonable deal, if in fact, as they say, they are only interested in peaceful nuclear programs.” “We have made progress in narrowing the gaps, but those gaps still exist,” Mr. Obama said in an interview with CBS News that aired Sunday on “Face the Nation.” “And I would say that over the next month or so, we’re going to be able to determine whether or not their system is able to accept what would be an extraordinarily reasonable deal, if in fact, as they say, they are only interested in peaceful nuclear programs.”
With a potential deal in sight, Secretary of State John Kerry spent much of the last week in Europe and the Middle East consulting with allies and reassuring those nervous about the prospect. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel addressed a joint meeting of Congress to warn that the terms as publicly reported would make it a “bad deal,” which would still leave Iran with a nuclear infrastructure that it could use to eventually make bombs. With a potential deal in sight, Secretary of State John Kerry spent much of the past week consulting with allies and reassuring those nervous about the prospect. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel addressed Congress to warn that the terms as publicly reported would make it a “bad deal,” which would still leave Iran with a nuclear infrastructure that it could use to eventually make bombs.
Many Republicans and some Democrats share Mr. Netanyahu’s concerns and have been drafting legislation intended to give Congress a say in whether an agreement would be satisfactory. At the insistence of Democrats, Senate Republicans agreed to hold off advancing such legislation for a few more weeks to give negotiators time to finish their work. Many Republicans and some Democrats share Mr. Netanyahu’s concerns and have been drafting legislation intended to give Congress a say in whether an agreement would be satisfactory. At the insistence of Democrats, Senate Republicans agreed to hold off advancing such legislation for a few more weeks.
But on the same program on Sunday, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican majority leader, made clear that he intends to pursue the matter eventually. “Obviously, the president doesn’t want us involved in this,” he said. “But he’s going to need us if he’s going to lift any of the existing sanctions. And so I think he cannot work around Congress forever.”But on the same program on Sunday, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican majority leader, made clear that he intends to pursue the matter eventually. “Obviously, the president doesn’t want us involved in this,” he said. “But he’s going to need us if he’s going to lift any of the existing sanctions. And so I think he cannot work around Congress forever.”
Negotiators from the United States, Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia and Iran have until late March to develop the outline of a deal, under a preliminary agreement that has limited Iran’s nuclear program in the meantime. If they succeed, they will have until June to translate that into a detailed, comprehensive document. Negotiators from the United States, Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia and Iran have until late March to develop the outline of a deal, under a preliminary agreement that has limited Iran’s nuclear program in the meantime. If they succeed, they will have until June to translate that into a detailed document.
The negotiators have been talking about an agreement that would limit Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium to the point that, in theory, it would take it a year to “break out” and create enough fuel for a bomb if it violated the terms, to be verified by international inspectors. In exchange, the world powers would ease the punishing sanctions that have strangled Iran’s economy. The deal would last at least 10 years but then expire. The negotiators have been talking about an agreement that would limit Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium to the point that, in theory, it would take it a year to “break out” and create enough fuel for a bomb if it violated the terms, to be verified by international inspectors. In exchange, the world powers would ease the sanctions that have strangled Iran’s economy. The deal would last at least 10 years, then expire.
Asked if an agreement was imminent, Mr. Obama seemed to suggest it may be. Asked if a deal was imminent, Mr. Obama seemed to suggest it may be. “I think it is fair to say that there is an urgency because we now have been negotiating for well over a year,” he said.
“I think it is fair to say that there is an urgency because we now have been negotiating for well over a year,” he said. He said Iran must decide whether it is willing to open up in the way such an agreement would require. “If we are able to verify that in fact they are not developing weapons systems, then there’s a deal to be had,” Mr. Obama said. “But that’s going to require them to accept the kind of verification and constraints on their program that so far, at least, they have not been willing to say yes to.”
He said Iran must decide whether it is willing to open up in the way such an agreement would require. “If we have unprecedented transparency in that system, if we are able to verify that in fact they are not developing weapons systems, then there’s a deal to be had,” Mr. Obama said. “But that’s going to require them to accept the kind of verification and constraints on their program that so far, at least, they have not been willing to say yes to.” He added that he would not accept a bad deal. “If there’s no deal, then we walk away,” he said.
He added that he would not accept a bad deal. “If there’s no deal, then we walk away,” he said. “If we cannot verify that they are not going to obtain a nuclear weapon, that there’s a breakout period so that even if they cheated we would be able to have enough time to take action, if we don’t have that kind of deal, then we’re not going to take it.” Mr. Netanyahu repeated on Sunday that he opposed the deal as it seemed to be emerging but acknowledged that in his speech to Congress he effectively backed off from his past insistence on leaving Iran with zero capacity to enrich uranium, even at lower grades for civilian fuel. “That would have been our preference from the beginning — it always is our preference,” he said.
Mr. Netanyahu repeated on Sunday that he opposed the deal as it seemed to be emerging, saying that inspections would not be a guarantee because they failed to stop North Korea from building a nuclear bomb and, for that matter, failed for years to detect Iran’s secret program. “What I’m suggesting is that you contract Iran’s nuclear program, so there’s less to inspect,” he said on the same program. But Mr. Netanyahu’s outspokenness continued to divide Washington. Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, said he was out of line. “What Prime Minister Netanyahu did here was something that no ally of the United States would have done,” she said on “Meet the Press” on NBC News. “I find it humiliating, embarrassing and very arrogant because this agreement is not yet finished.”
But he acknowledged that in his speech to Congress last week he effectively backed off from his past insistence on holding out for a deal that would leave Iran with zero capacity to enrich uranium, even at lower grades for civilian fuel. “That would have been our preference from the beginning — it always is our preference,” he said. “But I said at the very least that they don’t have the capability to break out to a bomb within a year or less, which is the current proposal.” Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said on the same program that skepticism was warranted. “Iran is our enemy,” he said, calling it “a coldblooded, cruel regime.”
But Mr. Netanyahu’s outspokenness continued to divide Washington. Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat and leading supporter of Israel, said the prime minister was out of line to attack a deal sought by the president before it was actually reached. Mr. Graham added: “They’ve tried to create a nuclear program, not a peaceful nuclear power plant. They’re the enemy of us.”
“What Prime Minister Netanyahu did here was something that no ally of the United States would have done,” she said on “Meet the Press” on NBC News. “I find it humiliating, embarrassing and very arrogant because this agreement is not yet finished.”
Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican considering a run for president, said on the same program that skepticism was warranted because Iran has a radical government that would use the money yielded from lifting sanctions to spread its extremist Islamic ideology.
“Iran is our enemy,” Mr. Graham said. “They’re a coldblooded, cruel regime that’s killed American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. They’re the leading state sponsor of terrorism. They’ve destabilized the region. They’re building ICBMs. They’ve tried to create a nuclear program, not a peaceful nuclear power plant. They’re the enemy of us.”